Accuracy of calories burned on machines

[marshmallow]

Are the ones that you enter your weight accurate? I'm just curious because I'm 5"7 190lbs and it said I burned 494 calories just running for 30 minutes. It sounds really high to me.

 

[vlad878]

bump

i want to know this as well

 

[Druss]

Should be very accurate if programmed right, a calorie is a unit of energy equal to the amount of energy it takes to heat 1 ml of water 1 degree Celsius.

Thats used in a big equation that calculates total calories needed to move an object's mass or weight (you) by distance traveled.

Same kind of equation is used to fuel jets based on cargo mass and distance traveled.

Energy is energy, whether its biological or mechanical its the same.

A perfect example is the old trick question:

Which burns more calories running a mile or walking a mile?
Answer: They're the same, the only difference is how long it will take to cover the distance.

 

[scrapper13]

A perfect example is the old trick question:

Which burns more calories running a mile or walking a mile?
Answer: They're the same, the only difference is how long it will take to cover the distance.

im gonna disagree with you on this bro. i read recenty that the average nfl player burns 75 calories running the length of the field at full speed. now if i walked 100 yards, there is no way im going to burn 75 calories. i dont completely understand all the factors, but from what i have read it comes down to the efficiency of the movement. running is much less efficient than walking and therefore requires more calories to do. here is a good article....

**broken link removed**

 

[mo chuisle]

If the machines are so accurate, how do you explain the treadmill displaying the same calories burned when I walk at 3.0 at 2% incline and 11% incline? I'm sure as heck working a LOT harder at the 11% incline, so wouldn't one assume I'd be burning more calories?? The treadmills only seem to take into account the speed, not the incline, which seems like a huge oversight.

 

[richiec]

im gonna disagree with you on this bro. i read recenty that the average nfl player burns 75 calories running the length of the field at full speed. now if i walked 100 yards, there is no way im going to burn 75 calories. i dont completely understand all the factors, but from what i have read it comes down to the efficiency of the movement. running is much less efficient than walking and therefore requires more calories to do. here is a good article....

**broken link removed**

And I'm going to disagree with you. I would love to read a study that says sprinting 100 yards will burn 75 cals... f**k the stairclimber, just do 10 sprints! Come on, you don't honestly believe that sprinting 100 yds burns 75 cals do you? Seriously, why go to the gym for cardio when you can do sprints and burn 4x the calories in 1/4 the time

 

[Ulamalop]

If the machines are so accurate, how do you explain the treadmill displaying the same calories burned when I walk at 3.0 at 2% incline and 11% incline? I'm sure as heck working a LOT harder at the 11% incline, so wouldn't one assume I'd be burning more calories?? The treadmills only seem to take into account the speed, not the incline, which seems like a huge oversight.

Bro, I've noticed the exact same thing. Even adding reistance doesn't affecy it as much as I thought.

 

[scrapper13]

And I'm going to disagree with you. I would love to read a study that says sprinting 100 yards will burn 75 cals... f**k the stairclimber, just do 10 sprints! Come on, you don't honestly believe that sprinting 100 yds burns 75 cals do you? Seriously, why go to the gym for cardio when you can do sprints and burn 4x the calories in 1/4 the time

read the article. what makes you burn the calories is the inefficiency of the running. the faster your sprint, the more calories you will burn. now we are not talking about the average joe, we are talking about an nfl running back or olympic sprinter firing on all cylinders. to move that much muscle that fast requires a tremendous amount of energy. why do u think they can barely stand at the end of such a short run? if you jogged that distance you wouldn't even be out of breath. and to answer your question of why if thats the case that people wouldn't do that instead of their stairclimber, well there are two reasons...number one the average person is not built to ever come close to moving like that and number two you wouldn't be able to run like that more than once without taking a long rest. michael phelps was consuming over 12,000 calories a day while at the olympics when he was only in 1 or 2 races a day. And he wasn't training in his down time, he was resting. When athletes of that caliber go at 100% they use a ridiculous amount of energy.

 

[richiec]

read the article. what makes you burn the calories is the inefficiency of the running. the faster your sprint, the more calories you will burn. now we are not talking about the average joe, we are talking about an nfl running back or olympic sprinter firing on all cylinders. to move that much muscle that fast requires a tremendous amount of energy. why do u think they can barely stand at the end of such a short run? if you jogged that distance you wouldn't even be out of breath. and to answer your question of why if thats the case that people wouldn't do that instead of their stairclimber, well there are two reasons...number one the average person is not built to ever come close to moving like that and number two you wouldn't be able to run like that more than once without taking a long rest. michael phelps was consuming over 12,000 calories a day while at the olympics when he was only in 1 or 2 races a day. And he wasn't training in his down time, he was resting. When athletes of that caliber go at 100% they use a ridiculous amount of energy.

I read the article, and I still think it is a crock of shit! I played professional baseball, so I know what it's like for "athletes of that caliber" to go at 100%
Moving like what, a full out sprint? So a pro athlete sprinting is different from an "average joe" sprinting? The difference between them: SPEED Regardless of where your athleticism is, a full out sprint is a full out sprint. We used to run 120yd timed sprints and have a 20-30 sec rest then do it again. So I guess your reasons just went right out the window there. As far as barely being able to stand at the end of a short run: this is very simple, you should feel stupid for asking. For starters, they are running with equipment on, then, they rarely run a straight line, and most important of all... the get hit by big ass MOFO's.
Regardless if you are a pro athlete or a regular guy, if you sprint full out, it's the same concept. A 225lb guy will expend more energy doing it than a 160lb guy. That doesn't really take an article to know know that.

 

[nickman1978]

im gonna disagree with you on this bro. i read recenty that the average nfl player burns 75 calories running the length of the field at full speed. now if i walked 100 yards, there is no way im going to burn 75 calories. i dont completely understand all the factors, but from what i have read it comes down to the efficiency of the movement. running is much less efficient than walking and therefore requires more calories to do. here is a good article....

**broken link removed**

---I agree with you, what does burn more cals? I'd think running no doubt---

And I'm going to disagree with you. I would love to read a study that says sprinting 100 yards will burn 75 cals... f**k the stairclimber, just do 10 sprints! Come on, you don't honestly believe that sprinting 100 yds burns 75 cals do you? Seriously, why go to the gym for cardio when you can do sprints and burn 4x the calories in 1/4 the time

---It is all very confusing---

Bro, I've noticed the exact same thing. Even adding reistance doesn't affecy it as much as I thought.

---FYI Mo is a women---

read the article. what makes you burn the calories is the inefficiency of the running. the faster your sprint, the more calories you will burn. now we are not talking about the average joe, we are talking about an nfl running back or olympic sprinter firing on all cylinders. to move that much muscle that fast requires a tremendous amount of energy. why do u think they can barely stand at the end of such a short run? if you jogged that distance you wouldn't even be out of breath. and to answer your question of why if thats the case that people wouldn't do that instead of their stairclimber, well there are two reasons...number one the average person is not built to ever come close to moving like that and number two you wouldn't be able to run like that more than once without taking a long rest. michael phelps was consuming over 12,000 calories a day while at the olympics when he was only in 1 or 2 races a day. And he wasn't training in his down time, he was resting. When athletes of that caliber go at 100% they use a ridiculous amount of energy.

---The more energy i use the more cals i burn---
---12,000 cals a day, thats nuts. Exspecially cause of his size, he's not all that big.---

 

[scrapper13]

.

 

[richiec]

.

 

[scrapper13]

.

 

[richiec]

.

 

[scrapper13]

.

 

[richiec]

.

 

[scrapper13]

.

 

[maldorf]

ONe other factor, although its probably a small one, is that someone that is a muscular 250 lbs is going to burn more calories than someone that is a fat 250 lbs. THe reason for this is that the BMR of the lean person is much higher becuase it takes more energy to fuel all of that lean tissue. A lean person is capable of generating a higher VO2 max as well, and this correlates to calories burned.